When I started reading about global warming in 1997, I had an open mind about carbon dioxide (CO2) warming the planet.
I still have an open mind.
The first 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the air probably have a significant warming effect.
But even the anti-CO2 biased UN's IPCC claims the next +100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere will have much less effect -- and even less effect for the next +100 ppm CO2 added.
In fact, there is no proof or evidence that CO2 above the current 400 ppm level would have any warming effect, or that the rise of CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm since the 1930s had any warming effect (because the change in average temperature since the 1930s is small relative to the likely margin of error of the measurements).
The dishonesty, and obviously bad science, from the people promoting the "CO2 is evil" belief, made me understand global warming was mainly politics, not science.
Of course the fact that so many politicians are involved should anyone with common sense very suspicious !
I used to wonder why government scientists ignored all global temperature data derived from NOAA weather satellites … but in time I understood that all data contradicting the "CO2 is evil" theory is ignored, attacked as inaccurate, or quietly "adjusted" away.
Environmentalists started with the conclusion that humans were destroying the Earth.
I'd call Earth Day 1970 the beginning.
The 1970s theory of what causes global warming started with the conclusion that humans were the cause.
The UN formed the IPCC only to prove that humans were the cause of warming, not to summarize all scientific views about climate change without bias.
Man made CO2 added to the air was selected as the cause of global warming.
There was never a good explanation why man made CO2 was accompanied by global cooling from 1940 to 1975, and by no warming at all from 2000 to 2015.
In 1998 a cyclical weather event called El Nino caused a steep, temporary temperature spike -- a portion of the Pacific Ocean releases a lot of heat into the air during an El Nino.
From Wikipedia:
El Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), ...
In February 2016 there was a similar El Nino temperature peak which was about +0.1 degrees C. warmer than the 1998 peak, according to weather satellites, but that's within the measurement margin of error.
Between those 1998 and 2016 El Nino peaks, the average temperature had a flat trend, in spite of a large amount of man made CO2 added to the air.
The "warmunists" have always ignored the weather satellites … in favor of much less accurate, non-global, surface data ... that they control (heh, heh).
Their surface data also showed a flat trend.
No problem -- they owned the surface data, so they could "fix" it.
In Spring 2015, the "warmunists" went back in time to arbitrarily "adjust" historical ocean temperature data, creating a slight amount of warming 'out of thin air' in the surface temperature data from 2000 to 2015 -- and the "pause" disappeared from their surface thermometer data ... but not from the satellite data!
Climate change dishonesty is not a surprise to me.
I expect bad science, "adjustments" when none are needed, false precision claims, ignoring contradictory data, and misleading press releases.
That's what "climate science" has been since the 1990s.
I've recently read several misleading articles about the unusual February 2016 heat, never mentioning El Nino is a temporary weather pattern that only affects a portion of the ocean.
“Climate science” presented by politicians and the UN is not real science.
It is political scaremongering about a left-wing fantasy -- an alleged coming climate crisis … that will never come.
The cause of climate change is unknown, so predictions of the future climate are just wild guesses.
That's why 97% of long-term climate predictions have been inaccurate, often by a huge amount.
Unfortunately, scary predictions are mandatory for scientists who want a government salary, or government grant, for any work involving the climate.
Any scientist who expresses doubt that CO2 is the climate controller (it is not, and never was), or doubt that a climate catastrophe is coming (it is not), is very unlikely to get a government salary or grant.
Governments buy the "science" they want (what they are actually buying is computer game nonsense, not science).
Climate modelers and their supercomputers are props paid for by left-wing governments.
These science props make the imaginary climate crisis more believable … just like a TV commercial for a drug becomes more believable when the actor/spokesman is wearing a lab coat and stethoscope.
Left-wing politicians want a crisis, real or imaginary, because they know how to use a crisis to increase government power.
Of course they always want more control over the private sector of the economy, because they think more government (socialism) is the solution to nearly every problem in the world.
Some people object to "socialism', because they know it as an inferior economic system.
But few people object to “Saving the Earth”.
The new way to “sell” socialism is what I call: “Save the Earth" socialism.
Few people realize there's been no correlation of CO2 levels and average temperature in Earth's 4.5 billion year history.
Few people realize the current climate is better than it has been in at least 500 years -- the centuries from 1300 to 1800 were unpleasantly cool, and CO2 levels were too low for a normal rate green plant growth.
People should instinctively know the future is unknown, and unknowable … but government scientists repeatedly claim THEY know the future = runaway warming … and THEY must be right … because THEY have science degrees and you do not … and they have big computers, and you do not.
They are right about global warming because they say so!
Environmentalists' primary goal is getting money, and telling everyone else how to live -- that's why they don't seem to care about real pollution in China and India.
Left-wing politicians say they don’t really WANT more power for themselves.
But … unfortunately … reluctantly … they have to seize more power over the private sector to save our children from a coming "Carbon Pollution" crisis (imagine scary music here).
It's not about the POLITICAL POWER !
It's about the CHILDREN !
Politicians use a centuries-old principle that religious leaders used to gain power:
Scare people about something bad that will allegedly happen in the future … and then tell them the only way to prevent that catastrophe is to do what they say. without question!
It's baloney, but works on most people!
It doesn't work on me.
Group of People -- Favorite "Boogeyman"
Religious leaders -- Hell
Right-wing political leaders -- Global Islamic Terrorism (previously Communism)
Left-wing political leaders -- Climate Change
(formerly called Global Cooling, until it started warming … and then called Global Warming, until there was a pause … and now called Climate Change!)
Real climate science is the study of climate history and the current climate.
What governments give us today is wild guess predictions of the future climate -- that's not science -- it's a waste of time and money because we don't even have a climate physics model that correctly explains what caused climate change in the past.
Without a correct climate physics model, predictions of the future climate are wild guesses.
So far, climate modelers and their current Global Climate Models have been providing nothing of value and have been wasting taxpayers’ money.
Even if we did have an accurate climate physics model, that doesn't mean it would be possible to predict the climate:
— Many things in life are not predictable today, and will never be predictable.
— Imagine that climate scientists discovered a specific characteristic of the Sun that had been responsible for all long-term climate changes on Earth.
Imagine their climate physics model was 100% correct … but that important solar characteristic varies at random (irregular, non-cyclical variations) … so we still couldn't predict the future climate!
So far we've had 40 years of climate forecasts from climate modelers and their confusers (computers).
In the mid-1970s there were some forecasts of a coming global cooling catastrophe.
Then runaway warming became the favorite prediction.
97% of the predictions so far have overstated actual global warming, often by a huge amount.
The government bureaucrats who own the climate models also own average temperature data 'actuals'.
That's a serious problem.
Those government bureaucrats repeatedly make arbitrary after-the-fact changes to historical temperature data to make their computer game predictions look better.
That’s not real science, but it doesn't surprise me at all, because climate change is really 99% politics, and 1% science.
In my opinion, if global cooling started tomorrow, government bureaucrats would arbitrarily "adjust" their average temperature data to show global warming was still in progress.
It could take decades for people to notice the climate was actually cooling, and the government data were wrong!
Climate change is politics.
And politics is filled with liars and lying.
By Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Socialists.